Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday September 05, 2008 @11:59PM
from the aboot-time dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Like the previous Bill C-60 before it, the proposed Bill C-61 that would bring DMCA-like laws to Canada is poised to die on the order table, never to receive a vote, as the current minority government falls. An election call is expected in days. Everybody expects that some form of these laws will be back yet again (third time's a charm?). There are too many interests pushing for change to let it go. But here's a chance for Canadians to influence politicians about it in an election campaign, and hopefully strike a better balance. And for those of you in the rest of the world who are laboring under a DMCA-like copyright law, let's hear your stories about why such laws are a good or bad idea, and if bad, how you would amend the law to make it tolerable. With the polls probably on Oct. 14th, Canadians will be looking for a few good ideas."

Its funny, but theres more people living in the state of California than there is in Canada. The Idea that Canadian file sharing could possibly be doing that much harm to the record industry is laughable.

Not that im for laws against file sharing, but if Canada had no restrictions on file sharing, then I'd imagine there would be a lot of Canadian rippers, and the USians could download from them, which would contrast with the US laws, and then either force Canada back into laws against it, or restrict the transfers between Canada and the US, since corporately many reside in/on both countries, unlike most central European, south American, or African places, etc.

Thing is we do have laws that cover file sharing, Our existing copyright laws already make distribution illegal (assuming your not authorized to of course). The problem US corporations have is that the Canadian system is substantially different from the US one in several ways.

The most prominent of these would be our Blank Media Levy, A portion of every sale on blank media like CD-R's is payed to the CRIA (our local version of the RIAA) This levy is widely held to cover any possible losses that companies might suffer from copying. This means as Canadians our fair use rights are a bit more ironclad, we are quite literally paying for them. Because of this blank media levy it's actually not even certain if pirating music is illegal or not, as we have in effect already paid for it (This has NOT been decided in court yet one way or another)

The next important difference is that we don't have a a DMCA like peice of legislation, meaning cracking DRM in Canada is also still in Legal Limbo, with no law saying its illegal to unlock your software the courts would tend to fall back on existing laws, and the logic of "You bought it its yours to do with as you please provided your not in violation of any laws" is pretty easy to follow. The aforementioned Blank Media Levy also makes format/time shifting a no brainier too, why pay a surcharge to a music industry on a product if you can't copy your music to it? So in Canada DRM is even more pointless as theres no law protecting it, which means companies can't try to lock you in to a certain product/vendor through tie ins and judicious use of DRM. And groups like the RIAA are pretty stupid about DRM they still think its going to be their saviour, and thanks to the DMCA in the US its almost working.

Finally, and in a more general way, Canadian consumer protection laws are more strict (that is to say in favor of the customer) than in the USA, may corporate practises that work in the USA don't work here. Most notably EULA's are not enforceable under Canadian law.

These factors are the death knell for the tactics that the BSA and RIAA and their ilk have been using in the states, and as the people trying desperately to hold onto an outdated business model thats bad (for them). A DMCA ish piece of legislation is nothing more than an industry trying to legislate it self a larger profit margin and we as Canadians neither need nor want it.

Again in case I wasen't clear Canada has copyright laws, and they cover fileshareing. What we don't have are the broken lobbyist bought laws that the USA suffers under, and we sure as fuck don't want em. And as a taxpaying citizen I think my government has spent enough of its time and my money on the issue. The recording industry continues to post record breaking multi-billion dollar profits, clearly they are not going under, time to focus our time and energy on more pressing concerns like oh say insuring we have enough energy to power the country in 5 years (we're a power hungry country, we need more damn power plants) or what we're going to do about a primary energy source other than oil. And of immediate concern is that the collapsing US dollar is basically killing our manufacturing industry, and were not just talking a few layoffs here, entire plants are closing down. American companies just can't afford to buy as much of our crap anymore between the sky high price of gas and a dollar at near parity.

Hi Original AC. Come videotape me Live downloading anything and everything, itching for free sacrificial RIAA money. These bastard are at the ready to rip off every word I might utter. Of course I'm marked and can't upload anything for the moment. I Won precisely because of absurd copyright laws. Pass some more! Give me more free money from the music industry coffers! Every single upload and every single download by any and all bloody RIAA pirate representatives has been and forever will be recorded to perf

There is one good part of the DMCA: The Safe Harbor stuff that makes ISPs not liable for content their users upload. Now, it just plain seems obvious to me that ISPs aren't responsible for policing their users, so I'm not sure if a law stating that is really necessary. But what is obvious and common sense isn't always what the law interprets. So it might be a good thing to have.

I think the most important thing is, though, the CRIA likes the levy, and was not interested in the Canadian DMCA.

That says a lot. I don't really give a shit about what movie companies say. There are none in Canada, and if there are, they're either incredibly shitty, owned by americans, or tiny shops that wouldn't mind more exposure.

What were they thinking with the DMCA? I mean, what we need is a murdering of corporations like Rogers and Bell, not encourage them. If Verizon came to Canada we'd pay their off

The ruling was that merely downloading and making available are not enough to infringe copyright. This is probably limited to music; the personal copy provision is explicit in that only music is covered (not even audio books).

The decision was appealed, and stood.

Making available on a folder on the hard disk was important. The personal copy provision allows for downloading. But the Copyright Act has a "no telecommunication" pr

Hehe. "A 'Threat'". Maybe in a land and a time far far ago. We can download anything and everything whenever we wish, to check to make sure that none of our own IPs are being violated as per established by the representatives of the RIAA methodology. Don't forget to/salute the Uploading Special Forces, Pirate Bastards!:P

Had the Conservatives been governing under a majority government, this bill would have passed long ago (plus we'd be even more involved militarily). Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time.

Ah ha ha ha, kidding, I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support. And I've been ranting to anyone who will listen: The Liberals aren't *that* much different from the Conservatives. So if, by some amazing chance, my (or your) vote for the NDP or Greens (or the Bloc if you're into that kind of thing:) ) could have been the deciding vote between the Libs and Cons, the situation is still largely the same. Especially if it's a minority.

But, it's hard convincing people. Even people who like the NDP. Even after I let them know that each vote means more funding for that party, so it isn't just a "wasted vote". Even after convincing them that the Libs wouldn't even have this "green shift" platform if it wasn't for the recent upswing in the Greens' numbers. Even after I show them Tommy Douglass' Mousland speech [youtube.com]. Sigh.

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support.

Precisely. That's why we have the concepts of majority, minority and coalition governments. I prefer minority governments for exactly the outcome we have here-- Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition actually has the chance to keep shit like this from steamrolling through, when the ruling party doesn't have enough seats to overwhelm the opposing vote.

I like to think that I'm a reasonably well-informed and educated person. I take an interest, greater or lesser, in a great many things, including politics and the world around us.

I have, in several elections, gone to the polling station, taken my ballot to the little booth and after unfolding it, I re-fold it and return it to the clerk for her to put into the ballot box. I vote, but I make no mark on the ballot at all if, in my opinion, no candidate is worthy of receiving my vote.

On the same note, I would really love to see a system where empty ballots are counted as such — and where a number of empty ballots could get an empty seat in the parliament.
It is unlikely the empty ballots would ever reach a majority, but even a few empty seats would show most vividly that some people are not at all represented, and remind the politicians that not everyone supports them. You need a majority for something? Well, the empty seats are against it; deal with it.

It might not change much, but at least the current abstainees would now have a reason to vote, even if it is for no-one.

Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.

The problem with your plan is that it assumes two things that just aren't true:

Politicians would somehow be 'shamed' when they are reminded that not everyone supports them. Their actual response will be more along the lines of, "sweet! That district usually opposes me on issues A and B, and now that they chose to be unrepresented, I shall propose bills that deal with A and B. Basically, there's one thing that is worse than being represented by a crappy politician, and that is having no representation at

It is not that I count on politicians being shamed. That would be dumb, since they cannot be shamed even when they are caught red-handed.
What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal. That's institutionalized opposition to everyone and anyone in power. Should it occur that people start using their votes in that manner, casting a null vote would actually mean somethin

What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal.

Actually, with that last bit in place, I find that I actually like your idea. I originally interpreted your empty seats to be "abstained" votes, which is what happens now in the US when the congresspeople just aren't there to vote. If not voting means an automatic "nay", that would work well.

I still don't think enough people would bother to vote with empty ballots that any seat would actually be empty, but like you said, that's an ideal world solution anyway.

First, I have no interest in running for office. I follow politics to some degree, but it's not a passionate interest and I have other things that I do that are of more importance. To me.

Well, I meant to say that if there' snobody on the ballot you can stomach and you feel like you must make some sort of difference anyway then you should run for office.

I don't have anything against people not voting at all and staying home. In fact, I think it's desirable for people who didn't fully research the issues and the candidates to not vote (and I'm not saying that applies to you, since you said you follow politics. You still have the right to not vote for any reason).

Second, if someone wishes to run for office, it is up to him to convince me that he is worthy. It's not my job to bang his or anyone else's drum.

If J.P. Schook is elected to be my representative, then it's his job to represent me, regardless of whether I voted for him, against him, or not at all.

Because voting is how you tell the candidate what your views are. He tells you what he's going to do while campaigning. If those views match what the majority of people in the community have, then he wins. Otherwise, the guy with the opposing views wins. If you don't vote, you're not telling anyone what your views are (most importantly, your representative doesn't know if it's the view most of the people he is representing have. You can call him, and he knows what you think, but you could be the one di

I like you're idea of voting for the party you actually support. I actually did last time around, but I'm worried about the Conservatives getting back in, so I'm not sure this time.
If you're in BC, vote for STV next year: http://stvforbc.com/ [stvforbc.com]

I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned.

That might work if the politicians were limited in the scope of bills they could introduce by what they promised to do during the election. Did I have any idea that Steven Harper would run all over the world shouting about how great and wonderful Israel is, and how we'll support them no matter what crimes they commit? I don't even remember it being an election issue. I don't remember people asking him to bring us

400 years ago, a substantial majority believed Earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

That changed.

Why? Because people supported the minority. That tiny minority who knew the earth to be round had the facts understood because they were correct, not because everyone else already secretly believed them.

If idiots continue to assume that only the governments that always get in power will get in power again, Canada's government will stagnate.

What the heck are you talking about? 400 years ago, everyone knew the earth was round. Ocean commerce would've been impossible without this knowledge. There wasn't even that much debate as to the radius of the mostly spherical earth, except for one Italian visitor to a newly emancipated Spain just looking for something to spend monies that had previously gone to the war effort on. (presumably in lieu of lowering taxation...)

GP was talking about a voting strategy based on the idea that a government that

What the heck are you talking about? 400 years ago, everyone knew the earth was round.

Of course, I'm talking about the majority of a group of visibly dumb people in a little-known island on the Pacific ocean. And I missed a zero:(

Nice point about bickering goverments, though! I think I agree. The minority governments have really felt pretty comfortable, except for how certain politicians are afraid to lift a finger because they don't want to trigger elections. It would be cool if this sort of "upset people and you are doomed" atmosphere was always there.

As a previously loyal conservative voter, I cannot vote for the conservatives this time largely due to C61. I have been thrust, unwillingly, into the arms of the NDP as they are the only one of the three major parties in Canada with a rational position on the subject. This bill proposes to make a criminal of me and virtually everyone I know.

I will be donating money and volunteering my time to ensure that the conservatives do not attain a majority.

That and Harper and Prentice are both industrial strength douchebags. Both of them can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

Just remember that this is the Conservative Party is the one that is modeled after the Republican Party in the United States. Not all of the the philosophies, but in operation. The have been in constant election mode and that means that they put their partisanship before any real governance.

This includes things like Bill C-61. If you are a Canadian and you are reading this site you should know what and how Bill C-61 is and how it can affect you. It is dead simply because of a quirk in politics, not because it died in any readings. The Conservatives can and will reintroduce a third bill like C-61 simply because they can. They are in line with 'big business' and lobbyists at the expense of your average Canadian. If you allow the Conservatives to gain a majority then they will ram a successor to C-61 down you throats and you have NO ONE but yourselves to blame in allowing this to happen.

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist, and then tried to cover it up by denying any fault. What makes you think that a government that would allow this would give any consideration to average Canadians about criminalizing downloads?

You have a little more than 30 days to get the word out that the Conservative Party is not out for any citizen's interests but is totally willing to follow the will of corporate interests, the largest of which are headquartered in the United States. Funny how Bill C-61 looked like the DMCA...

Right. Canadian election finance laws do not allow for contributions from big business any longer, which is one reason the Liberals - who were the party of big business, just look at contributions before Chretien changed the law - are broke. The Tories raise all their money - lots of it - from individual Canadians, with the average contribution being, IIRC, $75. But you keep believing that the Tories are mean and in the pockets of business, and keep forgetting that the Liberals stole your tax dollars to pay

I agree with most of what you said, but would add this: if anyone is interested in what's wrong with C61, check out Michael Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca] where he's running "61 Reforms to C61". It's scary as hell, C61 is MUCH worse than the DMCA.

And two, although Harper's government is complicit in the rendition of Maher Arar, Arar was actually rendered to Syria on Paul Martin's watch.

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist

No, that happened in 2002, three and a half years before the Conservatives came to power. The party in power back then was the Liberals.

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist, and then tried to cover it up by denying any fault

Er, no. It was the liberals who let Ahar to be deported to Syria. Granted, the tories will give even less a shit about that, but here the blame squarely lies with the liberals and, most importantly, the Royal Corrupt Maudit Police.

To be fair (and I'm not saying I agree with his selection process - I don't), the committee couldn't make a choice because the opposition members on it didn't show up, and quorum couldn't be reached. You can't blame Harper for that (but you can congratulate those MPs).

By law he is allowed to do it. He was just trying to reform the system with out all the hastle of getting a new bill passed. It is the oposition that appeared not want to change the statis quo. Since they never showed up to participate in the selection process.

Yes, thank you libertarian philosophy, thank you free market austrian economic analysis methodology. This isn't, never has been, and won't ever be, about "left" versus "right". This is an extremist left-right strange bedfellows unholy alliance timeout, to make the world a better place, by abolishing IP as a warmup to the task of eliminating government banker bunker fiat currency; then we can go back to our usual petty grievances.

I format shift my dvds to my entertainment center computer -- I don't give copies out to anyone -- but this simple act of format shifting dvds is criminalized under this bill (as dvds have copy protection that must be circumvented in order to format shift them). If it passes I will be a criminal -- as will almost everyone I know. Hence my vehement opposition.

Make it tolerable... By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to their original limited lifespan of 14 years after registration. (Although I don't mind the automatic copyright granted which should last for no more than one year pending registration, nor the application/grant of one extension for another 14 years)

Oh, and I would increase registration requirements and a provision to provide library copies with actual submissions in open source storage formats completely free of DRM.

Of course, the problem isn't people who want to live off their works for the rest of their lives. It's people who want those works to remain under copyright protection for half a century or more after the author has died. And it's all of the works that nobody is making any money on anymore, but that nevertheless are lost to the world because, since they are under copyright, and the owners of the copyright can't be located, the works can't be digitized.

>Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

Actually, as an Electrician, I create a lot of hard work. I was paid for it by the factory I worked at. I've left that line of work now. Do I feel the factory owes me anything at all?

No.

Why do artists feel they are owed money for a lifetime and a half (Canada's current laws give 50 years AFTER DEATH copyright terms) for any work they do? Whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 years? They're worse than today's university grads that feel toiling in a university for 3 years _entitles_ them to a $80k+ a year job FOR LIFE.

Fuck that self-entitlement shit right up the ass. If you don't like it, don't create any more art. I really don't care if there's no more art in the world if the only way it can be created is is if artists feel they deserve to be paid for it 50 years after they're dead and buried. Nobody deserves treatment like that, not even Jesus for God's sakes.

>I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right.

I created plenty of brilliant works as an Electrician, and even if I was the only one who could do the job I did (hint: artists are JUST AS REPLACEABLE, trust me -- there might be only one van gogh and only one mozart, but the world didn't stop turning because they didn't get 100+ year copyrights) I *never* felt entitled to live off that job for the rest of my life, just watching profits roll in, not doing jack shit to continue to justify them.

I think we need to go back to the old system of Kings and Queens paying artists to create art for them so artists can be taken off that high pedestal they think they deserve. Put them in a real job for five minutes and they'll start crying. Well, they say crying is the first step to healing!

>How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point.

Actually, I've used plenty of 15 year old provincial maps (thanks province of Ontario, too bad they're no longer free!) and they are just fine. Very few roads disappear, except for the occasional local route.

>I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?

You *have* to be shitting me, right? There's plenty of washed up, drunk, useless Electricians out there too. And if they don't get their arse up each and every morning they can't afford anything but moonshine. Do you shed a tear for them? Fucking elitist.

>Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies.

>I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

You have to be fucking kidding me. Because someone can operate a typewriter and put pablum on a page they deserve a lifetime of luxury?

>Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

*I'M SELFISH?* WTF?!?! I'm selfish because I expect perfectly capable people to work 40 hours a week? That I don't think someone who writes a book one time has the right to live off it for the rest of their life? That they society shouldn't tell them "enough is enough" and remind them, yes, you really do need to work for a livi

Eh don't hate artists because of him. Apart for some egotists like the guy from Metallica, artists generally want their art to be experienced and appreciated by as many people as possible and are happy to just make a healthy living at it (i.e put food on the table and a roof over their head). The GP is probably a shill for either the RIAA, MPAA, GOP, or CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) trying to astroturf to support the party line.

Most artists are OK, It's the bottom feeders that rip everyone off by creating artificial scarcity that you need to be angry with.

I'm not looking for 80k a year, but I do feel utterly cheated by the fact that i can't even find a 35k a year job because I actually participated in acadaemics instead of internships with a side of classes.

They don't want to train their workforce anymore, and they don't want to reward education with even a chance to prove your worth

You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

And you, sir, have evidently never invented anything useful.

I have 12 granted US Patents [all involve apparatus, none are for software or business methods], and a couple of pending applications. Some of these patents are actively exploited in products on the market, and I receive modest remuneration as a result. Of course, you are free to exploit any patented invention for your own use, provided it is not used commercially - royalties are only needed for commercial use.

Not only do you have to pay "non-trivial" filing, inspection, and [perhaps] grant fees to the US PTO, you must pay increasing renewal fees every four years to maintain a granted patent. You must also submit a locally adapted translated application and pay (usually even higher) fees in every other jurisdiction where you want your invention to be protected.

At most after 20 years from the first filing, the patent expires. None of mine have expired yet, but it won't be too long before the first one does. In fact, all of my existing patents will have expired before I retire. They are not "money for your life and your descendents' lives", even if they are used commercially for decades.

Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

Now, which benefits society more in the long term - a useful invention (on which further inventions may be built) or a recording of Prince or Madonna squawking?

If it's not exploited, a patent is often allowed to lapse after only 8 or 12 years (non-payment of maintenance fees). It expires after at most 20 years, no matter what.

I see no reason why copyrights should automatically be worldwide (patents are national), or last much longer than a patent. Even the lifetime of the author is the wrong term for copyright (author might be creative at 90 years old, or die in an accident, etc.), and would be inapplicable to corporations. A fixed maximum term of 20 years would be reasonable.

If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.

Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?... Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

We as a society, sir, never have rewarded people on the basis hard work and effort, nor is there ever any intention to do so. We reward people for supplying a saleable product or service for which there is a demand. The extent of the reward is determined by supply and demand.

Consider this example: a man moves a pile of rocks, then moves it back, every day for a year. No-one asked him to, he has no contract promising payment for moving the rocks. Do we reward him on the basis of his hard work? He has worked extremely hard! No, we don't reward him. If he had a lifelong dream to move rocks, he has fulfilled his dream, he's a success! If he did it in the expectation that someone should reward him, he's just a fool.

Nobody cares how hard the "individual creator" works, that's their problem. Introduce laws to reward hard work and you'll get a whole bunch of people doing "busy work" that's totally unproductive and undesirable and drains the economy. It'd be like having another government.

Here's the issue: copying is a natural right. It is the basis of all learning. We copy to learn to walk, we copy to learn to talk, we copy to learn to write, there is no endeavour you can embark on that does not depend on you first doing a massive amount of copying. Even our very life comes about from the copying of DNA, it is fundamental to our existence. Therefore, it is the obligation of the copyright proponents to justify their demand that people refrain from their natural right, not the obligation of the people to justify copying.

Well, here is the justification:
Without copyright (and with the existence of the internet) an unregulated free market operating solely on supply and demand does not facilitate the production of works as abundantly as we would like. The reason is that due to the infinitely copyable nature of the works, there are two extremes of supply only, (1) zero supply (or potential supply) for works not yet created and (2) unlimited supply for works that have been created. In the case of (1) the price for the production of one copy needed to provide incentive for the creator is too high for most potential buyers, greatly decreasing demand and therefore decreasing production of works. In the case of (2) the unlimited supply drops the price to near zero, greatly decreasing the incentive to supply and therefore decreasing production of works. But we want the works to be produced, so we can use (including copy) them.

The solution society (in the USA) came up with: we will temporarily forsake our natural right to copy, artificially creating a third intermediate phase in the supply of infinitely copyable works. (1a) temporary period in which the work has already been created, stimulating demand, but supply is limited, increasing the price and providing incentive for the creator. It is important to remember that the whole purpose for agreeing to this artificial limitation of supply is to achieve an abundance of infinitely copyable and usable works. So copyright is a social contract. You can find the terms of that contract in the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right
to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

So, you can see that "limited time" is a key part of the social contract. The agreement isn't "You produce works for us to buy, and we'll pay for them forever" it is "We'll temporarily refrain from copying so you can sell your work, you deliver that work to the public domain". Saying to me "Don't copy this work for now, your gr

Feel free to duplicate copy any and all of my and anyone else's material possessions, at your leisure, you creative, too stupid to accomplish it, retard. I and they absolve you and they of your and their miracle pretensions. More than one farmer grows corn, more than one woman gives birth, more than one is two is some kind of mathematically defined set. I might be late today. I can be on time tomorrow, but you'll 4-ever be stupid. Cease and desist from using my alphabetical letters and English words. I thin

I never said copyright law was wrong. I said the terms should be reverted to something more in line with the original intent of the US founders. As for a work being open and free, what makes you think anyone should have the right to profit from their work after they've sold it once? (This is the primary purpose of copyright by the way, to give a creator the ability to sell something more than once, thus gaining greater value from it)

I've already commented, so I can't but would someone please mod parent up? I completely agree; a balance has to be found between the rights of individuals to do what they want with the music/movies they have purchased, and the rights of artists and recording companies not to have their works stolen. I also agree there needs to be some limit on the term of copyright, and not the infinitely extensible 75-year terms favoured by the Disney Corporation.

Now, let me expand on that thought: the DMCA is purely about preventing people to have access by governmental fiat. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone as the real copyright violators, "pirates", will break DMCA laws while breaking existing laws. The normal citizen, who today can timeshift and format shift legally, becomes a criminal under DMCA.

So, essentially my point is that existing laws are already in place to deal with real piracy. The

Joking aside, she did write me back a with a proper letter and said she was against the bill and would vote no, so I suppose I should get off my ass and vote for her party in this election? (The NDP if you're wondering).

Please look at the chance of success in your riding first. If the vote might actually put in an NDP, go for it. If there's no chance you're going to have anything but Conservative, go for it. But if you're in a riding that can make a difference by stopping a Conservative win by voting Liberal, sigh and do the right thing. (Then go bawl out your Lib MP for what a useless party they still are.)

I'm in the last type of riding. It ain't a happy thing, but my god we'll be fucked if the Conservatives get more seat

Well, if the thought is those boats (which left a bit of a mess behind), I think we need to ask which is the bigger issue: The NDP's fast ferries, or the Liberals' privatization of BC Ferries which seems to have become a gaggle of incompetent morons who cut costs at every corner -- ending in a very big ship sinking (also a very nice and rather important one), people dieing and fees rising.

Armed with both recent and past history, I think people need to consider the flaws of everyone here. With regards to act

I wrote mine (James Rajotte, Conservative). I asked him why this bill criminalized fair use, exactly how he proposed to enforce it while upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it looked like suspiciously like everything the American recording/movie industry lobbyists asked for.

Got a nice form letter back saying it was a "made-in-Canada" solution that "protected consumers". So, making me a criminal for watching a DVD on my linux-based laptop is protection? I think I'll do fine on my own, thank you.

Despite Rajotte winning this riding by about a 30% margin the past few elections, I guess I'm voting Green.

For my part, I wrote to my MP as well. Unfortunately my MP happens to be Bev right now (yes, the infamous Ms Oda herself). All I got back was a form letter telling me how the bill is 'fair and balanced', and the fines are 'relatively low' if you copy for personal use unless you break digital locks.

F*** you, Bev. You're not getting my vote. And I'll do what I can to get my neighbours to not vote for you too.

You would have to rotate me slowly over a bone fire, while waterboarding, pouring boiling tar into my eyes, thumbscrewing, booting and lashing and stoning and torturing in 20 more different ways for me to vote NDP.

I always vote with libertarian principals in mind, at times this means conservative if there is no good libertarian to vote for, but NDP? Fry me in boiling oil and quarter me first.

I have no idea what my MP is saying on it, but I'm pretty sure he's against at this point (McGuinty).

IMHO, if your local representatives are shit, or they won't stand against the DMCA, vote Green. If only because even though I disagree with the whole socialist-green-politics, the Greens need the votes. If you get as many people convinced to vote Green too all the better. And one Green seat means one less conservative/liberal vote, and one less chance of stupid bills being passed.

I always thought it would be a cold day in hell when I would vote NDP, but I am now wondering if their nanny state tax & spend socialism is a lesser evil than facing astronomical fines for playing my DVDs under Linux, unlocking my cellphone or watching foreign DVDs on region free players.

If Bob Barr ever gives up on the US of A, I wonder if he would be inclined to help start/resurrect the libertarian party of Canada.

First, there's never going to be a "good" DMCA, at least not in those terms. The copyright holders (not the artists, who generally get less from DMCA than they did prior to such laws) are trying to have their cake and eat it. Doesn't work.

Second, if you absolutely have to have such a law, or ANY law on technology, then it has to be written in collaboration with technologists who can help politicians understand what will and won't work, and what is and is not enforceable. You CANNOT EVER make a good law in a vacuum. Every single time politicians and a single special-interest side of the debate try to control everything, it falls apart. If you don't listen, you cannot learn. If you do not learn, you cannot hope to avoid the mistakes of the past.

The balance in the the copyright industry's interests already even without their DMCA laws. It would be good to see a "better balance" but it is already pretty far in their favor with their "blank media" laws collecting them royalties in advance of its use (whether it is used for personal-use copying or not!)

The government did not "fall" - that is, it was not defeated in the House of Commons on a confidence measure. PM Stephen Harper is expected to request an election writ tomorrow, but the Governor-General is under no obligation to dissolve the house. She could ask the opposition parties if they could form a coalition government (unlikely, but possible), or she could refuse, and send Mr. Harper back to the House, where he could either dare the opposition to defeat him on a confidence measure (which would likely have to be a bill so contentious as to hand the opposition a ready-made election issue), or wait until Mr. Harper's own law which set an election date for late 2009 comes into effect.

Again, technically, once back in the House, Harper could introduce a confidence motion, and then ensure enough of his MP's were either absent or abstained so that he was defeated, but this would be so transparent that many Canadians would be annoyed, and not support him at the ballot box. Parliamentary democracy is so much fun!

For what exactly? That our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

What if nobody gives a shit? Then what? The RIAA will *still* lose. WTF do I care if they only have to pay me $200M instead of $800M, in one particular case? They're still BANKRUPT in The End. Does it really matter all that much if I piss on their heads at a 70 degree angle versus a 33 degree angle?

'Good thing that bill expanding healthcare to ensure all Canadians have a doctor got turfed. A DMCA bill was also attached to it.''Good thing that bill that finally repays all debt for all the abuse our native peoples have endured over the years got turfed. A DMCA bill as attached to it''Good thing that affordable housing bill got turfed. A DMCA bill was attached to it''Good thing that bill raising taxes for the top 1% wealthiest people in the country got turfed. A DMCA bill was a

The "**AAs"? Fuck the MAFIAA. Fuck the RIAA. They lost. It's over. Eliot Spitzer. John Edwards. Valerie (or is it Sarah?) Plain. There's plenty more from where that came from. X-Treme Copyright Acts are good for us! Let the big dummies walk the plank whilst threatened with a middle finger.

That is ABSOLUTELY FINE by me. I don't need your trash. I DO need the ability to communicate freely. If the "price" of being able to communicate freely is the "loss" of your future work, I can live with that. Face it, everyone's right to communicate freely is simply more important than your "right" to escape the free market via (technologically enforced or otherwise) copyright monopoly grants (note that if copyright exists, a free market _doesn't_)

As a writer, I find it odd how a small number of members of my profession find copyright so hard to understand. Society has done me, and those engaged in a similar occupation, a great favour by creating a framework by which I can easily profit from my work. The natural state for information is to be copied as widely as is desired, but society agrees that if I publish my work then it will enforce a time-limited monopoly on my behalf. In exchange for this, all I have to do is write and publish my writings.

That is, unless you are the Conservatives. They seem to have been running election campaign ads for about two weeks now. Really terrible ads, I might add. Frankly, I don't want our prime minister to be some "normal human" who sits around talking about his kids and how he spends lots of time with them. The PM should be superhuman, able to dedicate himself completely to his job for the whole term. There are a lot of 'normal humans' who waste my time talking about their kids besides Harper.Recent history (George Bush) has shown us that when a party resorts to this tactic they are trying to manipulate people to vote for something they do not believe in. I dearly hope this doesn't work out for them, because if it does we are all doomed.

The election ads themselves do not fit well given that the government has yet to actually declare an election and Harper himself, in his usual closed-doors way, has not actually stated his intentions. No other party is running campaign ads. As I understand it, no party should be running campaign ads. It is funny to think this is the same party which got power in the first place by blasting the Liberals for an advertising scandal of their own.